1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates generally to manual garden tools for digging and earth working. More particularly, the invention relates to a garden tool having removable a working element, that being understood to encompass blade, tines, or other component contacting the soil for digging, prying, and other working of the earth. The novel tool comprises a handle disposed downwardly from the longitudinal dimension of the tool and oriented downwardly, and an arm brace for engaging the forearm. The arm brace enhances leverage or force which may be applied to push the tines or other working elements downwardly into the soil.
The tool also has a chuck for manual attachment of diverse working elements. Illustratively, the tool may serve as a rake if a tined working element is attached, or as a spade if a shovel is attached. It is contemplated that different working elements will be included for digging, prying, raking, and similar working of earth and plants.
2. Description of the Prior Art
Garden rakes, particularly small rakes held in one hand, are employed by gardeners for both raking and digging purposes. This type of tool is quite useful in clearing dead plant growth from the surface of the soil, for separating roots from soil, and for digging shallow holes and trenches for planting.
Resistance encountered while performing these tasks varies considerably, at times requiring force beyond that which may be developed while grasping the handle of the tool. The prior art has suggested numerous arm braces which may be exploited for enhancing force applied to the blade, tines, or other working element of the tool.
U.S. Pat. No. 2,710,571, issued to Frederick W. Pfister on Jun. 14, 1955 illustrates a tined garden rake having a handle and an arm brace. Unlike the tool of Pfister, the handle of the present invention is vertically oriented when the tines face the ground. This orientation of the handle affords grip which is slightly more natural, comfortable, and therefore fatigue resistant than the horizontal orientation of Pfister's handle. Greater force can be developed and applied by a user in the present invention than occurs with Pfister's arrangement. Also, the present invention has removabe working elements, and can therefore adapt for new tasks.
U.S. Pat. No. 712,843, issued to Ralph H. Paul on Nov. 4, 1902 describes an arm brace in combination with a vertical handle. However, the working element of the tool is aligned with the longitudinal dimension of the tool. This orientation is suitable for forward movement of the tool. However, unlike the present invention, this arrangement does not enable downward force to be applied to the working element when the longitudinal dimension of the tool is horizontal, or parallel to the ground. Also, the brace requires fastening of a strap for effectiveness. By contrast, in the instant invention, the working element is perpendicular to the longitudinal dimension. Paul's device has a scraping blade, which is unlike the tines of the present invention in structure and purpose. Paul's device lacks ability to change working elements.
A similar device is shown in U.S. Pat. No. 4,888,846, issued to Thomas Natale on Dec. 26, 1989. Natale has a working element disposed in alignment with the longitudinal dimension of his tool. Unlike the present invention, this arrangement does not enable downward force to be applied to the working element when the longitudinal dimension of the tool is horizontal, or parallel to the ground. Natale's device has a scraping blade, which is unlike the tines of the present invention in structure and purpose. Natale lacks ability to change working elements.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,822,087, issued to Tony J. DeCarlo on Apr. 18, 1989, features a tool having a vertical handle and an arm brace. However, the arm brace is disposed to be ineffective if DeCarlo's tool were forced into the ground at its working element. This arrangement is opposite that of the present invention. Also, DeCarlo's working element is flaccid, unlike that of the present invention. Therefore, the purpose of the present invention cannot be realized by DeCarlo's invention. DeCarlo's working element has no relation to piercing the ground or to raking action, unlike the present invention. DeCarlo's device is not able to change working elements, unlike the present invention.
None of the above inventions and patents, taken either singly or in combination, is seen to describe the instant invention as claimed.